Eastern DRC: afc/m23 denounces international silence on peace process amid Kinshasa’s ‘sabotage’

The AFC/M23, through its political coordinator Corneille Nangaa, on Thursday vehemently condemned what it described as President Félix Tshisekedi’s “irresponsible” and “war-mongering” rhetoric. This statement, delivered in Houston, United States, to a segment of the Congolese diaspora following the DRC-Portugal World Cup match, saw the Congolese head of state comment on the security crisis in the Eastern region, pledging an imminent recapture of areas under the politico-military movement’s control.

During a press briefing held this Thursday, June 18, 2026, in Goma, the capital of Nord-Kivu province, Corneille Nangaa reiterated his movement’s resolve to defend itself against threats from Kinshasa. He expressed profound dismay at the international community’s stance concerning President Tshisekedi’s actions. Nangaa suggested that their conduct bordered on complicity, especially given that the international community is reportedly well-informed about the on-the-ground reality, where government forces are conducting intense attacks, violating prior commitments and ongoing diplomatic initiatives aimed at de-escalating the conflict.

“In the face of this dramatic situation and the ensuing calamities, we bear the responsibility, before God, History, and the Nation, to observe this deafening silence from the mediation and partners in the peace process, which verges on complicity. This is particularly concerning as the international community possesses detailed information regarding the reality on the ground, the extensive civilian casualties, and the perpetrators of these crimes,” Nangaa sternly declared.

He further elaborated:

“The mediators of the Doha peace talks, diplomatic missions, international agencies, and human rights organizations are aware of the continuous deterioration of the security and humanitarian situation across the region, especially in the Hauts-Plateaux de Minembwe. This lack of intervention only solidifies a sense of impunity and emboldens continued violence.”

Mr. Nangaa additionally criticized what he perceives as a tendency to downplay the security situation in Eastern DRC. He asserted that Félix Tshisekedi consistently undermines peace initiatives, seemingly unchecked by the Democratic Republic of Congo’s international partners.

“We reject the notion that the suffering of the people in Eastern Congo should be treated as a peripheral tragedy occurring, as they often state, over 2,000 kilometers from Kinshasa. Every human life merits equal protection and consideration. We draw everyone’s attention to the numerous obstacles, deceptions, manipulations, political maneuvers, and intrigues orchestrated by Mr. Félix Tshisekedi and his international partners, which persistently and severely jeopardize peace efforts in the Democratic Republic of Congo,” lamented the political coordinator of the politico-military movement.

He continued, stating:

“The reinforcement of military capabilities and the continuous deployment of new forces on the ground are diametrically opposed to a genuine de-escalation process. Many commitments made within the peace framework remain unfulfilled. While the AFC/M23 has released several hundred prisoners of war as a confidence-building measure, the reciprocal commitments expected from the Kinshasa regime have seen no implementation.”

This latest verbal exchange between Kinshasa, represented by President Félix Tshisekedi, and the AFC/M23 rebellion, which is supported by Rwanda, unfolds amidst a backdrop of diplomatic endeavors. These include the Washington agreements and the Doha process, both designed to establish a lasting ceasefire and rekindle dialogue among the various parties embroiled in the multi-year conflict plaguing Eastern DRC. Despite these efforts, concrete outcomes remain elusive on the ground, with hostilities persisting between the rebel group and government forces.

In light of this escalating situation, national, regional, and international voices continue to urge all stakeholders to honor the commitments made under various peace initiatives. However, these appeals have, to date, failed to yield significant impact. The persistent gap between the realities on the ground and the diplomatic progress documented on paper remains challenging to bridge. Each party, in fact, continues to interpret the provisions of these agreements through its own lens, thereby rendering their implementation increasingly precarious.